Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:28 PM Apr 2015

Can we disabuse ourselves of the notion that the only way to beat a republican is to be one?

Every time I read we could never nominate a true populist like Bernie Saunders - because the republicans would destroy him as "a socialist" - I think Great, so we win an election, but keep the parameters of governance firmly cemented in the framework of the right. Whoopee!

It's hard to argue with those who say the country can't afford another republican administration, but I don't see the country thriving on a "not quite as bad" program either. Maybe we need to do something radical for a change. Maybe we need to be brave and promote a real democratic candidate with a real democratic agenda no matter what, even if it means losing one. At least we show the American people which party is honestly interested in shifting the paradigm.

I guarantee if we try to keep this incrementalist bullshit going much longer while the country is falling to pieces, there WILL be a third party. People have had it.

60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can we disabuse ourselves of the notion that the only way to beat a republican is to be one? (Original Post) whatchamacallit Apr 2015 OP
bravo dembotoz Apr 2015 #1
This entire country has been moving right since Reagan Ruined Everything Novara Apr 2015 #2
Remember the air traffic controllers? Fairgo Apr 2015 #48
....been my motto for years: Reagan Ruined Everything Novara Apr 2015 #50
They call it "being pragmatic" Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #3
+1 liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #4
Please tell me how we get a progressive government upaloopa Apr 2015 #7
Was the Labor Movement delusional? Was the Civil Rights Movement delusional? Was the Women's liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #9
Great response! whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #10
Absolutely right. People who insist on pragmatism will espouse that philosophy GoneFishin Apr 2015 #41
There is more out there than just the White House. More than congress too. arcane1 Apr 2015 #11
We lose either way, actually Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #22
We are the proverbial frog in hot water. Turn the heat up slowly enough and no one fights it. liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #29
C'mon, get with the program! Maedhros Apr 2015 #5
LOL bvar22 Apr 2015 #13
I wonder what will keep you content for the upaloopa Apr 2015 #6
Congress just voted to create a permanent oligarchy whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #8
You have to replace the Congress in 2016 upaloopa Apr 2015 #12
I think you already do whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #14
Well you tell me what else will work? upaloopa Apr 2015 #30
THIS is what happen when the people try to replace Congress: bvar22 Apr 2015 #16
Great post. I remember that. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #38
That's some strong medicine right there Fairgo Apr 2015 #49
The middle class has been defeated. I live with the reality of the Republicans and Democrats liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #23
and they could have in 2014 or 2012 treestar Apr 2015 #45
has President Obama already signed the bill? 0rganism Apr 2015 #19
True, but small consolation whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #21
The Koch brothers will run the country Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #24
You are probably right. A progressive candidate may not have a chance of winning the liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #25
But it's meaningless to beat them by blurring the differences. Ken Burch Apr 2015 #36
Are you forgetting 2008? bvar22 Apr 2015 #51
Nobody has that notion. Obama won, and Hillary has a very good chance. DanTex Apr 2015 #15
Which is my point whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #17
You said "to be one." If you meant "to be less liberal than Sanders" then you'd have a point. DanTex Apr 2015 #18
Obama is certainly not a republican whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #20
Bette tell him. He doesn't seem to understand. bvar22 Apr 2015 #39
Funny that the haters/purity testers don't seem to mind actual Republicans from the 80s, DanTex Apr 2015 #43
Your "haters/purity testers" hissyfit aside LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #57
DAMN RIGHT!!!! BrotherIvan Apr 2015 #26
Bernie is too far right for me. I am also not comfortable with his national security voting. Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #27
Wrong Bernie. You are thinking of Bernie Kerik LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #58
Well the people that say that are solid HRC supporters so it is not a surprise. Rex Apr 2015 #28
If you want progressive candidates to win, it's not going to start in 2016 justiceischeap Apr 2015 #31
Third Party? Thespian2 Apr 2015 #32
I think that Bernie Sanders history as a democratic socialst is a weakness. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #33
Actually, I would like people to disabuse themselves of the notion that salib Apr 2015 #34
I think Bernie is unelectable. Drunken Irishman Apr 2015 #35
why be a Dem when you can pretend? MisterP Apr 2015 #37
Kick and hifiguy Apr 2015 #40
The actual Democrats I know... 99Forever Apr 2015 #42
With demographics changing in this country many with wealth and power must WANT a third party. stillwaiting Apr 2015 #44
If we had a parliamentary system a strong left third party would benefit the left... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #47
you just don't want to face the reality of where the other voters are treestar Apr 2015 #46
The Not As Bad wing of the party disagrees. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #52
But what if we do nominate someone you think is republican lite? Wait, how could anyone NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 #53
Pleeease... politicians will say anything whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #54
Warren too? NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 #55
No, just the ones who've made a career out of supporting the elite whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #56
OK, i thought I saw ALL politicians or an that was implied. NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 #61
where the rubber meets the road is on the issue of who gets to appoint justices CTyankee Apr 2015 #59
It is astonishing to me..... sendero Apr 2015 #60

Novara

(5,840 posts)
2. This entire country has been moving right since Reagan Ruined Everything
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:31 PM
Apr 2015

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the days of "radical" progressivism are gone. I really hope I'm wrong.

Fairgo

(1,571 posts)
48. Remember the air traffic controllers?
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:27 AM
Apr 2015

Now, look at the state of air travel to day...It's been a slow slide ever since. He truly did ruin everything.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
3. They call it "being pragmatic"
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:33 PM
Apr 2015

Any time you hear a Democrat talking about "pragmatism", the working class are about to get it in the short and curlies.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
7. Please tell me how we get a progressive government
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:39 PM
Apr 2015

after we lose in 2016?
If you aren't pragmatic you are delusional!

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
9. Was the Labor Movement delusional? Was the Civil Rights Movement delusional? Was the Women's
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:44 PM
Apr 2015

Suffrage Movement delusional? Sometimes things get so bad, pragmatism doesn't do enough. The 1% are hoarding over half of the world's wealth. Just how bad does it have to get before we say enough is enough? The workers have been beaten down for over 30 years now, ever since Reagan. It has gotten bad enough that little scraps here and there are not enough. It is time to fight for what has been stolen and hoarded by the 1%.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
41. Absolutely right. People who insist on pragmatism will espouse that philosophy
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:36 PM
Apr 2015

in every election because it will always, always, be easier to elect a right-leaning candidate who has the stamp of approval of the 1% than it will be to elect a genuine populist who has the spine to stand up for the middle class. If we follow their instincts it will take us somewhere that we don't want to be. How much farther right can the country slide before the ideals of the founders have been completely erased?

I don't know what the correct answer is, but I know that is not it.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
11. There is more out there than just the White House. More than congress too.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:53 PM
Apr 2015

It begins right here in our cities and counties, and then at the state level. Then the federal. The republicans know this. The born-agains know this.

It starts LOCAL!!!

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
22. We lose either way, actually
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:18 PM
Apr 2015

it is just a matter of how fast. We are very unlikely to win back the congress in 2016, and HRC will use that as an excuse to be "pragmatic" meaning the country and its laws will continue their rightward move.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
6. I wonder what will keep you content for the
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:36 PM
Apr 2015

next eight years of a republican administration run by the Koch brothers?
Do you have some way to remain happy as the oligarchy becomes firmly entrenched for the rest of your life time? You have a way of dealing with 4 more conservatives on the SCOTUS?
Your remind me of the kid who doesn't get his way so he takes his glove and goes home.
The only way you are going to get what you want is to beat the repubs when ever you can and work step by step to bring about more progressive legislation. Nothing will come of a repub win in 2016.
It amazes me that we call ourselves more enlightened that the right yet you ask the questions you do!

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
8. Congress just voted to create a permanent oligarchy
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:42 PM
Apr 2015

and that was done under a democratic administration. Your assurance of a radically better future if a democrat, any democrat, is elected president, falls short of reality.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
12. You have to replace the Congress in 2016
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:00 PM
Apr 2015

Geez the " whatever" just doesn't stop.
Obama will veto that bill!
I could not live a life of defeatism as you do.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
30. Well you tell me what else will work?
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:50 PM
Apr 2015

I'll bet you have nothing but your fantasies!
Some real true progressive is going to declare and the majority of the country will get behind who ever it is and we will all live happily ever after.
On edit I left out:
Millions and millions of small donations will come in giving this new candidate the billion dollars it will take to win.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
16. THIS is what happen when the people try to replace Congress:
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:05 PM
Apr 2015

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/


After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.

Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?

Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-
(Please watch the above video from Crooks & Liars)

So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
23. The middle class has been defeated. I live with the reality of the Republicans and Democrats
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:19 PM
Apr 2015

selling out the middle class. I used to tell my daughter we would send her to college. That dream was busted. Now we are spending the few thousands of dollars we do have to send her to community college and she is applying for college loans that will rack up tens of thousands in debt for her so she can go to a university after she is done with community college. And she knows once she gets out of college with that massive debt the income she will earn will be less than a generation ago too. My son has suffered under the Democratic Race to the Top education policy. They try to force him to perform at the same level as his general education peers even though he is in special education. All of the schools in WA state are considered failing because our state legislature refused to tie state standardized testing to teacher evaluation. My husband and son are both on SSDI which I have to wonder how much longer it will be before the pragmatic Democrats will cave to cuts to SSDI that Republicans want to make. I have been defeated by both the Republicans and the Democrats, but I refuse to give up and I refuse to give in and be a pragmatist. I choose to fight. I will fight for what has been stolen from me and from my children.

0rganism

(23,943 posts)
19. has President Obama already signed the bill?
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:13 PM
Apr 2015

i thought that was still up in the air.
that's one thing you get with the triangulating milquetoast Dem administrations - at least there's some hope they'll do the right thing. if this were a GOP administration, there'd be no question about whether such a law would have their support.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
24. The Koch brothers will run the country
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:27 PM
Apr 2015

regardless of who wins the White House, since they are buying the congress.

The country has been a de facto police state since the Patriot Act was passed. When the Democrats controlled all branches of government in 2009, they decided to retain the police state, protect Wall Street and shield war criminals.

That was pretty much game over.

The Democrats will retain the White House in 2016, but since Wall Street will own the candidate, things will continue toward the inevitable conclusion.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
25. You are probably right. A progressive candidate may not have a chance of winning the
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:32 PM
Apr 2015

Presidency and even if they do they may not have a chance at changing the machine that our government has become, but at least a progressive President would fight and that is what I want. Win or lose I want someone to fight for me and my family and who knows maybe if more of the country joins the fight we can change things. The Labor Movement changed things. The Civil Rights Movement changed things. The Women's Suffrage Movement changed things. Eventually things will get bad enough that people will fight back and we will have another movement. The question is how bad will it get and when will the people fight back? That I cannot answer, but I know I will fight.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
36. But it's meaningless to beat them by blurring the differences.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:01 PM
Apr 2015

The Nineties proved that.

We achieve nothing by campaigning as if we've already lost the argument on the main issues and can do nothing but tinker at the edges of the edges. Tinkering is a waste of time, since small changes are usually worthless.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
51. Are you forgetting 2008?
Wed Apr 22, 2015, 03:55 PM
Apr 2015

In 2006, the American People gave the Democrats large majorities in the House & Senate.
In 2008, the American People gave the Democrats the White House,
and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
AND the White House.


How much good did that do?

*More Free Trade

*A Republican Health Insurance "Plan"

*Wars extended to more sovereign countries.

*Drone Terror Killings

*A Unitary Executive who claimed the power to secretly assassinate ANYONE without Due Process or any oversight what-so-ever.

*Reissuing the Patriot Act

*The NDAA

I could go on, but you get the picture.



DanTex

(20,709 posts)
15. Nobody has that notion. Obama won, and Hillary has a very good chance.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:04 PM
Apr 2015

Bernie Sanders can't win nationally, but there are plenty of Democrats who can.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
17. Which is my point
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:08 PM
Apr 2015

Why can't Bernie win? Is it because his politics aren't close enough to the republicans? I'm tired of them setting the tone.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
18. You said "to be one." If you meant "to be less liberal than Sanders" then you'd have a point.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:12 PM
Apr 2015

A self-professed socialist can't win a national election in the US. That doesn't mean you have to "be a Republican" to win. As demonstrated by Obama.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
20. Obama is certainly not a republican
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:16 PM
Apr 2015

but he became a huge disappointment when he quickly plugged in to their frames.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
43. Funny that the haters/purity testers don't seem to mind actual Republicans from the 80s,
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:19 PM
Apr 2015

like Elizabeth Warren...

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
57. Your "haters/purity testers" hissyfit aside
Wed Apr 22, 2015, 10:51 PM
Apr 2015

Elizabeth Warren's policies have evolved to where she is one of the few true liberals out there. Yet when we criticize a Democrat who says his policies make him a moderate Republican you screech that we are "purity testers".

Well, yeah, I guess you are right-- I'm such a "purity tester" that I don't think Democrats should proudly call themselves moderate Republicans.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
26. DAMN RIGHT!!!!
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:37 PM
Apr 2015

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

-Nietzsche

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
27. Bernie is too far right for me. I am also not comfortable with his national security voting.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:43 PM
Apr 2015

He is not the right candidate in my opinion.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
58. Wrong Bernie. You are thinking of Bernie Kerik
Wed Apr 22, 2015, 10:54 PM
Apr 2015

Seriously, not a good attempt to disrupt even by your standards.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
28. Well the people that say that are solid HRC supporters so it is not a surprise.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:48 PM
Apr 2015

Also, a few of them despise anything to the left of center, so not a surprise there either.

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
31. If you want progressive candidates to win, it's not going to start in 2016
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:00 PM
Apr 2015

In order to win with a Progressive candidate, we'd have to take over the DNC with Progressives because it's the DNC who decides who gets to run and who gets the chance to run and who gets to be successful (re: money) when they do run. If you don't get the DNC on board, you're toast because they'll come after you with all their power to make sure you don't win--so the candidate is fighting their own party and the opposing party.

So if you can figure out how to weight the DNC with Progressives that'd be a good place to start. And like I said in the title, it's not going to happen by 2016. So the choice is this; do we, as a party, go Republican Light and make sure the Supreme Court stays balanced (or it tips in our favor) or do we sit this one out and let the Republicans, that are about 1000 times worse than any Democratic "Republican Light" candidate, do what they do best for the next 8 years, which is take this nation backwards both in policy and social issues?

If the actual Republicans win, I would predict an overturning (or a fierce attempt) of Roe v. Wade, I'd guess any rights women have for their own health choices would slowly erode. Any progress made by Obama within the LGBT community would be gone and likely laws outlawing LGBT folk would be put in place. Obamacare would be dismantled. Any positive movement on immigration can be forgotten--just imagine that fence across our borders and how much it'll cost. It'll probably be mandatory for babies to be given guns with their new social security numbers. Christianity would become the de facto "state" religion. Evolution would be stripped from classrooms and replaced with creationism. Climate change would get exponentially worse because any and all EPA regulations they can strip, will be stripped (if they don't close down the EPA entirely). Fracking would happen in everyone's backyard, clean water be damned.

I'm sure I could go on with the list of potential negatives if the real Republicans take over in 2016 but I'm now pretty depressed after this list because I know the reality of politics and if the DNC don't want you to run or win, you won't--the populace be damned.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
33. I think that Bernie Sanders history as a democratic socialst is a weakness.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:14 PM
Apr 2015

I don't think that means he can not win the nominaiton or the White House.

Soicalism has been a whipping boy of American culture for a century and a half. He will have to overcome generations of anti-socialst propaganda. I think he should try.

(If you get a chance, check out the movie "Son of Kong" where they have a anti-socialist scene.)

salib

(2,116 posts)
34. Actually, I would like people to disabuse themselves of the notion that
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:26 PM
Apr 2015

anyone EXCEPT a string populist has ANY chance of winning against the Repug money machine.

Really. Without a true populist, there will never be enough excitement to overcome the juggernaut of money and vote suppression.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
35. I think Bernie is unelectable.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:37 PM
Apr 2015

Just as I thought Dennis Kucinich was, too. Their message might not be bad and I think a good chunk of the country would be supportive of it - but when you're looking at an election where you need more than 20% of the vote to win, that ideology can certainly become a liability.

The problem with your point is that you're not getting radical change if you lose. Nothing was gained out of McGovern losing to Nixon in 1972 beyond the GOP cementing its lurch to the right and even expanding on that lurch in the 1980s under Reagan. McGovern losing spectacularly to Nixon almost undid everything gained during the Democrats' dominance under the New Deal.

It sounds like a hyperbole - but it's true. His campaign was painted as so extreme that even liberal states went for Nixon.

Bernie wouldn't lose as badly, since the Republicans are far more nuttier today than in the 1970s, plus the electorate is far more divided today than it was back then, but Jeb Bush would beat Bernie Sanders. He's just sane enough to fool 20% of the country into buying his approach. Couple that with the 30% base that will support anyone over a Democrat and you've got a very narrow path to victory and he'll take it.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
42. The actual Democrats I know...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:57 PM
Apr 2015

... came to that conclusion long ago. Many are doing exactly you suggest. They have decided that their vote is important and won't waste it on another corporate Democrat. The tipping point is at hand.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
44. With demographics changing in this country many with wealth and power must WANT a third party.
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:10 AM
Apr 2015

Look at how the conservative party in Canada has a majority government with 38% of the vote.

Having the left splinter off from the Democratic Party will allow the Republican Party to maintain control in this country, and they might not even have to cheat that much!

Of course, this means they have to keep the Tea Party firmly within the Republican Party, but I believe they will be able to do that. Tea Party members are easily led compared to left-wing individuals.

If that is their agenda (to splinter the left off from the Democratic Party), then many elected Democratic officials simply have to continue to do what they've been doing (catering to Wall Street over Main Street). If the left doesn't organize to change the Democratic Party from within, many will splinter off from the Democratic Party, and this nation will be well and truly fucked. It couldn't work out any nicer for the wealthy assholes amongst us.

** "Wealthy assholes" does not include wealthy individuals who are working to restore some sense of basic economic and social justice in this country.



DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
47. If we had a parliamentary system a strong left third party would benefit the left...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:12 AM
Apr 2015

If we had a parliamentary system a strong left wing third party would benefit the left...But we don't so all it would do is ensure the Republicans control the White House into infinity. Here's how it works. Electoral votes are granted in every state but Nebraska on a winner take all basis, whether the winner gained a majority or plurality of the votes. If the left vote is divided the Republicans could certainly get a plurality in enough states to win the White House. Since House elections and most Senate elections are similar we would end up with same result.

It's simple math...A third party, be it on the left or right, hurts the party closest to it. A strong right wing third party would make purple states blue, blue states bluer, and nominally red states blue. A strong left wing third party would make purple states red, red states even redder, and nominally blue states red.

Look at the 68 and 72 elections when the right wing vote was divided and when it wasn't. In 1968 the right wing vote was splintered between Wallace and Nixon, Nixon received 43% of the vote, Humphrey 42% and George Wallace 14%. In 1972 the right wing is united , there is no right wing alternative (Wallace) and Nixon wins 61% of the vote and carries 49 states.

It could work the other way...The Republicans pick the establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, and The Tea Party refuses to back him and convinces Ted Cruz to run as a Third Party. In that scenario, the right wing vote would be severely divided and I can see Jeb Bush losing very badly.



There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a two party system but when you look at the practical implications of following it you can see that is exactly what its authors planned.

For better or worse they knew exactly what they they were doing.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
46. you just don't want to face the reality of where the other voters are
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:19 AM
Apr 2015

there are enough rabid Republicans out there. We learned that from all of the last 3 midterms.

You're not convincing them to be progressives very quickly.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
52. The Not As Bad wing of the party disagrees.
Wed Apr 22, 2015, 04:00 PM
Apr 2015

i.e. One tablespoon of arsenic in your coffee is "not as bad" as two tablespoons.

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
53. But what if we do nominate someone you think is republican lite? Wait, how could anyone
Wed Apr 22, 2015, 04:06 PM
Apr 2015

call someone who said "we have to topple the one percent

republican lite?

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
56. No, just the ones who've made a career out of supporting the elite
Wed Apr 22, 2015, 10:32 PM
Apr 2015

Now that she has her huge warchest, and thinks she's a shoe in, she's gabbing campaign finance reform and "toppling the 1%" (lol). Tainted red meat.

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
61. OK, i thought I saw ALL politicians or an that was implied.
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 12:47 PM
Apr 2015

Let me help you out with this - every word in this video is true


CTyankee

(63,902 posts)
59. where the rubber meets the road is on the issue of who gets to appoint justices
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 08:41 AM
Apr 2015

to the federal courts and the Supreme Court. Since they are LIFE appointments and we have several liberal justices getting very old, this is the deal breaker. I have 3 granddaughters and I can't let their lives be put at risk if we get republican appointed justices that can reverse Roe. I hear the argument that says "they will threaten to get rid of Roe but they won't do it because it takes away their favorite RW pro-life arguments." However, do we want to take a chance that they won't?

sendero

(28,552 posts)
60. It is astonishing to me.....
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 08:53 AM
Apr 2015

.... that so many people think death by a thousand cuts (Democrat's economic policy) is preferable to sudden death (Republican's policy).

If we're going to die anyway I'd prefer to get it over with, let the country see the consequences of their choice and begin to rebuild.

That is why I will NEVER vote for a DINO Democrat again.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can we disabuse ourselves...